EGM Postpones Review of MGS4 Because Konami Imposed "Limitations"

[quote name='VanillaGorilla']7 minutes!? That's all? 7 measley minutes? Big deal! How is THAT one of the things that is going to detract from this game? Are gamers in 2008 so wired up and riddled with ADD that they can't handle a 7 minute long installation process?[/quote]

I dont think people are getting their panties in a bunch over a 7 minute install. I think it's more about the fact that the mandatory install takes up 4gb of hard drive space.
 
Remember how none of the magazine reviews or walkthrough said a single word about Raiden? Maybe we will see something story related.


As for the 90min cutscreen, a gamepro reviewer already said that he beat the game and didnt see it.
 
[quote name='Frogurt.man']Why do people complain about the PS3 installs??? It took me 2 hours to install Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts!![/QUOTE]

I wouldn't mind if I actually saw improvements in some area. But it seems like most optional installs do little to help. With games that require the install, it's hard to tell what improvements we're really getting, regardless of what the developer says.
 
[quote name='Apossum']It's cool that they let people know about the situation, but that just reinforces the notion that game journalists are weak in the face of publisher demands. The proper way to handle it would be to print the review anyway and start a complete media shitstorm if Konami tried to cut them off.

I'm curious about whether this happens to book and movie reviewers as well. Could a publisher or studio afford to cut off or restrict prominent outlets?[/quote]EGM is dying for advertising as it is, why would they want to piss off Konami? Anger Konami, and say bye-bye to those 2 page Hellboy ads, or ads for any other upcoming Konami games.

EGM needs Konami and Metal Gear Solid more than Konami needs EGM.
 
Thanks for telling me that MGS4 needs 4GB of space. I think I'd be pretty pissed if I had to delete Calling All Cars or flOw just to make space for Metal Gear.

Back on topic, EGM didn't really didn't do anything. This just brings them attention as they try to be the "credible" video game magazine. I like EGM but it's not like they can't be replaced. I give them two more years before folding or getting bought out. They've pissed off too many big companies that pay good ad money. EGM forgot who was really the boss when you depend on ad money to survive.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Anger Konami, and say bye-bye to those 2 page Hellboy ads[/quote]

Considering the score they gave the Hellboy game, I don't Konami would want to advertise that game in the mag.

As for them basically giving a review with no score, good. This needed to come out, especially since reviews were starting to be questioned because of Gamespot.

As for those who want a "fluff" review of the game, go read Game Informer. Seems like they're always willing to please publishers just to get a early review.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I was skimming my magazine last night and thought it was odd that there was no grade for it. I really have no problem if they do away with all the scores/grades and actually make people read the review.[/QUOTE]

Second
1%20scruffy.jpg
 
I'd also like to add that nobody is going to give a shit about the reviews. It's Metal Gear Solid 4 and anybody who is buying is most definitely a fan that's been eagerly anticipating this for ages. There's that and the hype train is already rolling since the review average is 95.4% on GameRankings. Konami's going to sell the same number of copies and EGM is going to lose on advertising, as everybody else as mentioned. EGM is just a fucking shadow of its former greatness anyways so I could care less as to what happens to the magazine.
 
Good to hear EGM did that. MGS4 should be a pretty badass game anyway. I have no idea why Konami would put limitations on the reviews. It's not like the game is going to get a 4 or something. However this does need to be the "perfect game" for PS3's sake, so maybe they don't want the slightest bit of negativity.

If the installs aren't that long it shouldn't be a problem. GTA4 had an install or something at the beginning of the game and that really didn't bother me. The only problem is that eventually all these games might sap your HD.
 
They're trying to get publicity for themselves by implying that they will stand up to publishers when they set certain demands.
They just look dumb saying they wont review a game and then basically reviewing the whole game without assigning letter grades.
 
The games industry is unique in that you really can't cover it, at least any time soon enough to be relevant, without the help of publishers and PR people. This doesn't mean that you have to suck up to publishers and kiss their ass to make them happy, but it does mean you don't go out of your way to piss them off.

If EGM didn't want to review MGS4 yet, then fine, but they didn't really need to throw Konami under the bus. And it seems like too little, too late that they make a big stink now over this practice when I can guarantee you that they have reviewed plenty of games over the last 15 years with review restrictions and didn't ever bat an eye.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They pretty much reviewed it without giving it a letter grade.

What a way to stand up to the man![/QUOTE]

Pretty much; instead of giving it a review, they gave it a review. It would be quite ha-larious, though, if Konami used a quote from the review for an advertisement.
 
[quote name='GF_Eric']The games industry is unique in that you really can't cover it, at least any time soon enough to be relevant, without the help of publishers and PR people. This doesn't mean that you have to suck up to publishers and kiss their ass to make them happy, but it does mean you don't go out of your way to piss them off.

If EGM didn't want to review MGS4 yet, then fine, but they didn't really need to throw Konami under the bus. And it seems like too little, too late that they make a big stink now over this practice when I can guarantee you that they have reviewed plenty of games over the last 15 years with review restrictions and didn't ever bat an eye.[/QUOTE]

Konami prevented them from putting up a truthful review when it counts most. The bus EGM threw them under was more like a tonka toy bus, though. As myke pointed out, EGM reviewed the game for all intents and purposes. They needed to put up the full review with full commentary about the nasty bits Konami wanted to cover up, along with a score.

the power dynamics between pubs and writers are unbalanced in the game industry, which is why it's getting harder by the day to take any of these writers seriously.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']7 minutes!? That's all? 7 measley minutes? Big deal! How is THAT one of the things that is going to detract from this game? Are gamers in 2008 so wired up and riddled with ADD that they can't handle a 7 minute long installation process?[/QUOTE]



Ummm to sum it up, yes
 
First off, are we even sure the install is 7 minutes? Or is that speculation?

Also 90 minute custscenes, is ridiculous. That would mean that there would be times that people go to play MGS, and just sat for 1.5 hours just to watch a friggen movie, instead of actually playing. 90 minutes is crazy when most people really only play in 1 hour-1.5 hour intervals anyway.

And then when Konami is apparently not confident about their own product, why should I be?
 
[quote name='Vinny']I wouldn't mind if I actually saw improvements in some area. But it seems like most optional installs do little to help. With games that require the install, it's hard to tell what improvements we're really getting, regardless of what the developer says.[/quote]

I imagine that w/o the installs, some games would have load times so long that they render the game unplayable.
 
So EGM are hypocrites and Konami's business practices are undefendable regarding their review restrictions.

Hurray for the future of gaming!

If this is the future, I think I'll dig out my Commodore 64.
 
Good for them not bowing down to the list of demands from Konami.

No publisher should be allowed to pull crap like that no matter how many quality games they produce.
 
I didn't read it all, but who cares about the install times? Just set it and forget it, go eat a sandwich or read the manual with the game. How is an install time that is meant to minimize loading times for every time you load the game from then on out a big deal in the least?
 
Hey at least they communicate with the readers.

I agree with the lack of grading as a cool way of doing things, but that really doesn't fly with the general public.

I think a non-review was a good way to handle their situation, although it's kind of ridiculous that Konami and other companies behave this way.
 
Why is it ridiculous for a business to avoid bad press? I'm not saying it's defendable but I understand why Konami wants this kind of arrangement. MGS3 didn't sell that well and they don't want Metal Gear to become a second tier brand. Konami is putting a lot eggs in this basket and it probably took a boatload of cash to develop this game.
 
Damn. I thought we were in the clear of stupid rumors this close to launch. :whistle2:(

None of this is nerfarious in any way and is nothing new as far as review embargos are concerned. Nintendo did the same thing for Smash Brothers, telling reviewers they couldn't even mention that Sonic and Snake were in the game, which is on the back of the box, unless they wanted to wait a month to publish their review. This is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

I guess MGS4 can't be this close to release without rumors to make it even more controversial.

[quote name='jer7583']EGM played by konami's rules in this issue, and because they did so, they didn't "review" the game or give it a score. There will be a review down the line, probably next month, with scores, when they're able to get the game at retail and play through it on their own terms.

The review limitations have to do with the exclusive, invite only playthrough at Konami's ritzy resort in Japan. (Which was not a final version, but it was close) Any other magazine you see a review of the game in right now likely reviewed based on that event and accepted konami's rules about the 90 min cutscenes and the install.

EGM probably did the best they could with this situation, but the "final preview" should have gone somewhere else than the reviews section.[/quote]
The retreat in Japan wasn't for reviews, but previews and getting feedback on things that needed to be tweaked in the game, so those writers should not be a part of any review of the final game.

Nothing they wrote about why it's not in the issue has to do with buying the game at retail and playing through it on their own terms. Just that they don't want to publish a review that doesn't have all of their thoughts in it just to be one of the first out there. It's in that spot because that's the Review Wrap-Up section, where they at least write something for games that they couldn't get a review in before the issue went to the presses.
 
I didn't even read the "roundtable discussion," and I'm not going to. I don't want them spoiling anything about MGS4. Plus if they were really pissed about the "limitations," they wouldn't have had a 6 page discussion/scoreless review to begin with.

If I didn't get EGM for free, I'd not get it at all.
 
the other message: "hay, Hsu is gone but we can still kinda play hardball a little!"
 
Let's look at this logically, please. EGM sucks; they always seem to focus on the negative, and they are a bunch of frat-boy wanna-bees and hypocrites.

They claim that Konami imposed limitations, but they never said what they were. Now every internet gossiper has some theory about Konami's dirty laundry. It's probably just that Kojima doesn't want certain aspects of the plot and gameplay spoiled before the game comes out. All Kojima fans know that he likes to pack a lot of detail and surprises into his games.

So EGM goes ahead and prints a several page "discussion" about the game, which contains spoilers (in text and picture form) about the new features of the game. That makes me mad. They're clearly not sticking it to anybody but their own readers.

Further, they claim that they'd rather wait until next issue so they can be "completely open and thorough" with their "thoughts." This shit just makes me laugh at them, as most reviews in the magazine are comprised of a few sentences. Greg Ford's review of Hellboy in the same issue is barely 4 sentences long, and it doesn't really even explain what is good or bad about the game in any detail. That's not what I would consider "open and thorough."

Now, I know that they'll spend more time on MGS4 than Hellboy, but I think this reveals a lot of the character and personality of EGM as a whole. In other words, they don't have any. They are hypocrites that focus on the negative all the time, try to act tough and trash games so they can hide the fact that they are a completely useless magazine with trivial opinions and coverage.

EGM's current form represents the worst the industry has to offer in the way of game writing/coverage. If it wasn't for the fact that my friend gets it for free, I would never even look at it. It's pretty much trash. I sincerely beg everyone on here to never pay them money ever so that they may be put to rest and the world can sleep easier at night.
 
[quote name='DEATH 3000'] I sincerely beg everyone on here to never pay them money ever so that they may be put to rest and the world can sleep easier at night.[/QUOTE]

I think we all get it for free courtesy of CAG. ;)
 
[quote name='DEATH 3000']Let's look at this logically, please. EGM sucks; they always seem to focus on the negative, and they are a bunch of frat-boy wanna-bees and hypocrites.

They claim that Konami imposed limitations, but they never said what they were. Now every internet gossiper has some theory about Konami's dirty laundry. It's probably just that Kojima doesn't want certain aspects of the plot and gameplay spoiled before the game comes out. All Kojima fans know that he likes to pack a lot of detail and surprises into his games.

So EGM goes ahead and prints a several page "discussion" about the game, which contains spoilers (in text and picture form) about the new features of the game. That makes me mad. They're clearly not sticking it to anybody but their own readers.

Further, they claim that they'd rather wait until next issue so they can be "completely open and thorough" with their "thoughts." This shit just makes me laugh at them, as most reviews in the magazine are comprised of a few sentences. Greg Ford's review of Hellboy in the same issue is barely 4 sentences long, and it doesn't really even explain what is good or bad about the game in any detail. That's not what I would consider "open and thorough."

Now, I know that they'll spend more time on MGS4 than Hellboy, but I think this reveals a lot of the character and personality of EGM as a whole. In other words, they don't have any. They are hypocrites that focus on the negative all the time, try to act tough and trash games so they can hide the fact that they are a completely useless magazine with trivial opinions and coverage.

EGM's current form represents the worst the industry has to offer in the way of game writing/coverage. If it wasn't for the fact that my friend gets it for free, I would never even look at it. It's pretty much trash. I sincerely beg everyone on here to never pay them money ever so that they may be put to rest and the world can sleep easier at night.[/quote]

I agree with all of this. The only reason they would outright SAY Konami imposed limitations while still giving a review is to try and make themselves look good to the readership. They don't care if it makes Konami look bad.

Don't fall for EGM's publicity stunt, guys. It's a trap.
 
Did anyone mention yet that in the "Next Issue" section, they say they ARE GOING TO REVIEW METAL GEAR SOLID 4 next issue? Kinda makes these 5 pages pointless.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Did anyone mention yet that in the "Next Issue" section, they say they ARE GOING TO REVIEW METAL GEAR SOLID 4 next issue? Kinda makes these 5 pages pointless.[/QUOTE]

They didn't say then were never going to review it, they just had to explain why they didn't have a full review in this when it was listed in the last issue as something that would be in this months mag.
 
Hope Konami pulls their ads. Although I do admit EGM is awesome toiletry reading material, it really loosens up the stool.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Did anyone mention yet that in the "Next Issue" section, they say they ARE GOING TO REVIEW METAL GEAR SOLID 4 next issue? Kinda makes these 5 pages pointless.[/quote]
Yeah, the title's misleading, but I guess Kotaku's trying to make this even more controversial than it really is.

How the hell is this a publicity stunt?
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Yeah, the title's misleading, but I guess Kotaku's trying to make this even more controversial than it really is.

How the hell is this a publicity stunt?[/quote]

It isn't. They didn't ask to be on Kotaku, and they just wanted to address their subscribers why there isn't a "review" in the magazine. If they went all out and said "fuck Konami, we don't need your BS, and we are gonna slam this game like it should be" and then started spreading that around, that would be a publicity stunt.
 
[quote name='help1']It isn't. They didn't ask to be on Kotaku, and they just wanted to address their subscribers why there isn't a "review" in the magazine. If they went all out and said "fuck Konami, we don't need your BS, and we are gonna slam this game like it should be" and then started spreading that around, that would be a publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. They just had to explain why they didn't have a full review when they said they would, and they did the discussion as they know their readers want to read impressions of the game before it comes out. So even though they decided not to score it this issue, they still wanted to put out some content in this issue in advance of the games release.

I see no problem with it. I like that they didn't do a full review since they felt limited in what they could write, and I like that they still toss out some lengthy impressions to tide readers over.
 
[quote name='musha666']EGM is pretty petty magazine company now. Someone says something bad about their reviews so they hammer all the big releases that come out afterwards. If a company doesnt give them a game to review until close to release date they get all pissy and give it a crap review with little more reason then "gameplay is repetitive."
[/quote]

Examples?
 
http://blogs.ign.com/Matt-IGN/2008/06/02/91717/
IGN's Peer Schneider is a little obsessive about our database -- specifically, making sure all of our game, movies and people objects feature up-to-date profiles and pictures. Recently, he updated the profile for Mario Segali, the famed NOA warehouse landlord who reportedly inspired the "Mario" name in Miyamoto's epic franchise.
As a little experiment, Peer decided to create a mock picture of the never-photographed Segali -- his goal being to see how long it took for fansites and other sources to nab it as legitimate. Peer started with a photo of IGN DVD editor Chris Monfette and then added a really crummy mustache, some equally poor eyebrows, and colored his hair to make him look a little older. Done.
matt-blog-2-20080602114249570.jpg

Above: Chris Monfette (left) and Chris Monfette as Mario Segali (right)
That was about a month ago. Since that time, Monfette (as Segali) has already made it to the big time: print. This time, courtesy EGM Magazine. Here's a quick photo of this month's latest issue:
matt-blog-2-20080602114242992-000.jpg
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

Just establishing the fact that EGM has no journalistic integrity before moving onto my next point.

The newest EGM claims there's no cover system in MGS4 that lets you peek out and shoot.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/a...4-guns-of-the-patriots--20070823044426421.jpg


EGM is just trying to cover it's own ass, and they're horribly spinning it in a way that makes Konami look bad.

I hope EGM gets burned for it.
 
[quote name='B:L']Just establishing the fact that EGM has no journalistic integrity before moving onto my next point.

The newest EGM claims there's no cover system in MGS4 that lets you peek out and shoot.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/a...4-guns-of-the-patriots--20070823044426421.jpg


EGM is just trying to cover it's own ass, and they're horribly spinning it in a way that makes Konami look bad.

I hope EGM gets burned for it.[/quote]
Breaking news: Everybody makes mistakes.

What fact? You posted some blog post about some guy at EGM falsifying information to sabotage other sites and EGM bit on a tiny, false picture.

Only one guy claims it doesn't have a cover system and while it does, it's nothing like Gears or Rainbow Six Vegas' cover systems, so he could just be refering to that type of cover system. You can barely cling to a wall and slowly lean out to shoot, which isn't really much of a cover system.

What are they spinning here? All they say is that they don't want restrictions on what they can cover in their review, so they pushed the review to next month. I don't believe they've even attempted to respond to this "huge news story" to cover their ass, as you put it.

You still need to provide proof of this being a publicity stunt that only third parties are making a big deal about. It just sounds like you just hate them and must find everything that may or may not actually support your claims that they need to be shut down ASAP.
 
[quote name='help1']It isn't. They didn't ask to be on Kotaku, and they just wanted to address their subscribers why there isn't a "review" in the magazine. If they went all out and said "fuck Konami, we don't need your BS, and we are gonna slam this game like it should be" and then started spreading that around, that would be a publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]


Actually, that would have been the correct thing to do, but then konami wouldn't have sent them free metal gear figures for their desks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top